In his remarks at the synod’s close, Pope Francis mocked “so-called traditionalists” for their “hostile rigidity.”

That is one way of putting it. Another is that traditionalists believe moral truth does not change, nor can Catholic doctrines be altered.

Even a pope cannot do that.

Should such be attempted, the pope would be speaking heresy. And as it is Catholic doctrine that the pope is infallible, that he cannot err when speaking ex cathedra on faith and morals, this would imply that Francis was not a valid pope and the chair of Peter is empty.

I think it's interesting that he understands and can express the doctrine and logic of the position so well.

I think it's equally interesting that there's no hint here of Francis being only materially a heretic, or whether some technicality might be invoked to escape the infallibility argument...

John Zmirak:

Quote:

Some conservatives who value authority over truth will dutifully defend this papal decision, and pretend that they never argued against it in the first place. Some traditionalists will split off altogether, and claim that Pope Francis became a heretic and lost his office as pope.

Zmirak is smart and clever with words, but knows no theology at all; like James Larson but with wit. But even he can see that "papal" heresy implies a vacant See in Rome - at least, for people who know some theology.

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue Oct 21, 2014 5:31 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Sedevacantism top of mind...

A further thought on this. If anybody imagines that this will make any difference to SSPX thinkers, I suggest that it won't. Unlike "conservatives" or semi-trads like Pat Buchanan and John Zmirak, the SSPX recognises heresy even when it isn't about a question relating to women (women priests, contraception, abortion, marriage, etc.). Novus Conservatives have reduced the faith to such questions, because that's what Paul VI and JP2 fostered (incidentally, I have never worked out why those two Nopes fostered that particular narrowing down of the faith - perhaps somebody else can pin it down?). Anyway, the point is, traditionalists of all stripes recognise heresy in all of the other points of faith, so we're already accustomed to it coming from "rome." Therefore I really don't think that there will be any significant increase of sedevacantism amongst the trad clergy if Francis gets his new heresies through as "official" in some sense. The laity, on the other hand, I think might well react in a much simpler and vehement manner... For many of the laity, the faith is identified with being pro-life and being faithful to one's spouse, and such things, so Francis's ideas really are an earthquake for them.

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:26 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Sedevacantism top of mind...

Rorate joins in:

Quote:

The prophetic spirit of Father Calmel, is like few in the past 50 years, he had foreseen this tragic possibility and warned the faithful by providing them with the weapons to remain faithful to the Church at all times and thereby avoid the temptation of sedevacantism or even that which is more deadly, despair.

So despair is worse. Even in mentioning it to condemn it, Rorate praises sedevacantism with faint damnation.

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue Oct 21, 2014 8:43 am

TKGS

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 amPosts: 391Location: Indiana, USA

Re: Sedevacantism top of mind...

John Lane wrote:

I really don't think that there will be any significant increase of sedevacantism amongst the trad clergy if Francis gets his new heresies through as "official" in some sense.

Unfortunately, to the detriment of many people who may still have the Catholic faith, he's already gotten his new heresies through "unofficially" at least.

By next year's synod, all of the heresies that were ultimately not approved but published nonetheless will be standard teaching in many Conciliar schools, catechisms, and pulpits while a more carefully chosen crop of bishops will not balk at the clear will of their fearless leader and they will rhetorically ask what can they do since it is already the widespread teaching and faith of the people. Truth be told, much of what was "leaked" about many bishops' attitudes about homosexuals already is the standard teaching in much of the Conciliar sect and this synod has confirmed them in their corruption.

A friend of mine commented that this was so clever of Satan, for the events at this synod will effectively change the faith of millions to their damnation while preventing actual faithful Catholics from recognizing what happened by hiding behind the official documents.

_________________Daniel Peck, Indiana, United States

Tue Oct 21, 2014 11:31 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Sedevacantism top of mind...

TKGS wrote:

A friend of mine commented that this was so clever of Satan, for the events at this synod will effectively change the faith of millions to their damnation while preventing actual faithful Catholics from recognizing what happened by hiding behind the official documents.

Yes, and this has been the tactic from the beginning. The key to the entire revolution was not a pope preaching heresy, but rather a pope, or "pope", refusing to preach the faith.

By that phrase I refer to the entire complex of tactical methods - the failure to teach clearly, authoritatively, and accurately; the refusal of John XXIII and Paul VI particularly to condemn error or to impose any sanctions on those who preached heresy, etc. It was, essentially, the withdrawal of the authority of the papacy that brought about the revolution, fostered it, and made it permanent. This is why faithful Catholics are arguing over the legitimacy of the papal claimants: they refused to impose, as law, their heresies, leaving the question of their official status debatable. This is the thesis that informs my book: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1570

I apologise for quoting myself:

Quote:

In reviewing this immeasurably sad course of events, a result of consistent policy informed by a definite philosophy (naturalism, in the form of Modernism), the central cause should have become clear. Faith, which is the foundation of the Church, the first of her bonds of unity, and which consists in the supernaturally aided assent of the mind to truths preached authoritatively by the Church, was made to appear optional. The Church to all appearances ceased preaching as one having authority. It appeared that she had ceased to command acceptance of her doctrines. There was no longer any ecclesiastical discipline imposed on those who doubted or denied, led others into error, scandalised the little ones of Christ. To those outside the Church she appeared as uncertain, apologetic for her past, confused about her mission. Conversions dried up.

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue Oct 21, 2014 12:24 pm

ClemensMaria

Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:58 amPosts: 50Location: Massachusetts, USA

Re: Sedevacantism top of mind...

John Lane wrote:

A further thought on this. If anybody imagines that this will make any difference to SSPX thinkers, I suggest that it won't. Unlike "conservatives" or semi-trads like Pat Buchanan and John Zmirak, the SSPX recognises heresy even when it isn't about a question relating to women (women priests, contraception, abortion, marriage, etc.). Novus Conservatives have reduced the faith to such questions, because that's what Paul VI and JP2 fostered (incidentally, I have never worked out why those two Nopes fostered that particular narrowing down of the faith - perhaps somebody else can pin it down?). Anyway, the point is, traditionalists of all stripes recognise heresy in all of the other points of faith, so we're already accustomed to it coming from "rome." Therefore I really don't think that there will be any significant increase of sedevacantism amongst the trad clergy if Francis gets his new heresies through as "official" in some sense. The laity, on the other hand, I think might well react in a much simpler and vehement manner... For many of the laity, the faith is identified with being pro-life and being faithful to one's spouse, and such things, so Francis's ideas really are an earthquake for them.

Yes, so glad you posted the reference to the Pat Buchanan article. I have not been paying close attention to what is happening in the Conciliar Church lately. I knew the synod was happening and Fr. Benedict Hughes mentioned that Francis had "beatified" Paul VI. But I did not realize that the NO hierarchy had erupted into open combat. I don't know if this will help the sedevacantist cause or not. It can't hurt that more and more NO people are becoming aware of the problem.

Perhaps Paul VI and JPII held on to some aspects of the traditional doctrine because it helped to keep conservatives and semi-trads on board and neutralized with regard to the real issues? i.e. it was a kind of psy-ops maneuver?

Tue Oct 21, 2014 5:24 pm

ClemensMaria

Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:58 amPosts: 50Location: Massachusetts, USA

Re: Sedevacantism top of mind...

John Lane wrote:

TKGS wrote:

A friend of mine commented that this was so clever of Satan, for the events at this synod will effectively change the faith of millions to their damnation while preventing actual faithful Catholics from recognizing what happened by hiding behind the official documents.

Yes, and this has been the tactic from the beginning. The key to the entire revolution was not a pope preaching heresy, but rather a pope, or "pope", refusing to preach the faith.

By that phrase I refer to the entire complex of tactical methods - the failure to teach clearly, authoritatively, and accurately; the refusal of John XXIII and Paul VI particularly to condemn error or to impose any sanctions on those who preached heresy, etc. It was, essentially, the withdrawal of the authority of the papacy that brought about the revolution, fostered it, and made it permanent. This is why faithful Catholics are arguing over the legitimacy of the papal claimants: they refused to impose, as law, their heresies, leaving the question of their official status debatable. This is the thesis that informs my book: http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/vi ... f=2&t=1570

I apologise for quoting myself:

Quote:

In reviewing this immeasurably sad course of events, a result of consistent policy informed by a definite philosophy (naturalism, in the form of Modernism), the central cause should have become clear. Faith, which is the foundation of the Church, the first of her bonds of unity, and which consists in the supernaturally aided assent of the mind to truths preached authoritatively by the Church, was made to appear optional. The Church to all appearances ceased preaching as one having authority. It appeared that she had ceased to command acceptance of her doctrines. There was no longer any ecclesiastical discipline imposed on those who doubted or denied, led others into error, scandalised the little ones of Christ. To those outside the Church she appeared as uncertain, apologetic for her past, confused about her mission. Conversions dried up.

Great insight! I wonder if this isn't the answer to the question about why Paul VI and JPII held on to some aspects of traditional doctrine? It is much harder to prove that they have failed to preach the faith if they continue to preach some aspects of it.

Tue Oct 21, 2014 5:33 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Sedevacantism top of mind...

ClemensMaria wrote:

Perhaps Paul VI and JPII held on to some aspects of the traditional doctrine because it helped to keep conservatives and semi-trads on board and neutralized with regard to the real issues? i.e. it was a kind of psy-ops maneuver?

Well, I think that anybody trained in theology, as they all were, knows where the line is at which point one steps out of the Church by heresy. They were also keenly aware that secret heresy is safe (in this world) and public heresy certainly isn't (or wasn't!). Roncalli quite explicitly said in circa 1912 when he was suspect of Modernism that he would take great care from now on not to express his opinions to anybody.

So, promoting men like de Chardin, allowing his ideas to spread and take root, and showing him every sign of favour whilst never allowing him to be sanctioned or even seriously criticised by anybody with authority, is an excellent way to spread heresy whilst retaining one's own ambiguous position; the conservatives will then defend you, the liberals will wink and nod, and the sedevacantist types will remain a sufficiently small number so that they can be dismissed as extremists.

What I don't understand is why the moral issues were chosen as the things that would be defended to a greater degree. I mean, the Real Presence, the Resurrection, purgatory, so many of the truly fundamental dogmas have been openly cast into doubt, so that in the churches few can be found who hold all of them as dogmas. Yet this doesn't cause angst like the notion of women priests, or divorce and remarriage, or abortion. I don't think Francis is really that inaccurate when he says that the modern Church has effectively defined itself in terms of these things, and this is not Christianity. He has a wicked agenda for this observation, but is it really that false? I tend to think the analysis is about right. Novus Conservatives really do seem to have a religion in which those are the important things. The Mass certainly isn't that important to them! I might be doing them an injustice, but I think of the Novus Conservative milieu as essentially the "Catholic" pro-life movement. Note, I am not suggesting that those people don't have orthodox faith themselves - they probably largely do - but only that what gets them moving, what upsets them, is not the doubt or denial of other dogmas, but only the ones relating to women. Perhaps this is because these matters are largely natural law, so that if the supernatural spirit is gone, those things are all that remain. I don't know, but it's curious.

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue Oct 21, 2014 11:59 pm

Luke L

Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 5:19 amPosts: 36

Re: Sedevacantism top of mind...

In thinking about this Synod for the past few days, I am beginning to wonder if the whole morality question, 'opening to homosexuals' and public communion for adulterers, wasn't designed as a red herring from the start. The real prize the modernists were after was the 'beatification' of Montini. While the whole conservative Novus Ordo world was busy fighting and screaming about the supposed change of doctrine/practice in the Church, the beatification of Montini went scarcely noticed and completely unopposed. This of course opens the door to yet another rapid 'canonization' for Montini, the last of the 'Saint Popes' of the 'New Springtime' of Vatican II to have not yet been raised to the unholy altars of the Novus Ordo church. It may also be worth mentioning that if the rumours of Montini's personal vice are to believed, then Francis and the modernists will have their 'gay saint' and the that will be the effective end of the conservatives opposition to that agenda. As you said John, the conservatives have been gamed again.

Wed Oct 22, 2014 6:03 am

Jorge Armendariz

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pmPosts: 210

Re: Sedevacantism top of mind...

John Lane wrote:

ClemensMaria wrote:

Perhaps Paul VI and JPII held on to some aspects of the traditional doctrine because it helped to keep conservatives and semi-trads on board and neutralized with regard to the real issues? i.e. it was a kind of psy-ops maneuver?

Well, I think that anybody trained in theology, as they all were, knows where the line is at which point one steps out of the Church by heresy. They were also keenly aware that secret heresy is safe (in this world) and public heresy certainly isn't (or wasn't!). Roncalli quite explicitly said in circa 1912 when he was suspect of Modernism that he would take great care from now on not to express his opinions to anybody.

So, promoting men like de Chardin, allowing his ideas to spread and take root, and showing him every sign of favour whilst never allowing him to be sanctioned or even seriously criticised by anybody with authority, is an excellent way to spread heresy whilst retaining one's own ambiguous position; the conservatives will then defend you, the liberals will wink and nod, and the sedevacantist types will remain a sufficiently small number so that they can be dismissed as extremists.

What I don't understand is why the moral issues were chosen as the things that would be defended to a greater degree. I mean, the Real Presence, the Resurrection, purgatory, so many of the truly fundamental dogmas have been openly cast into doubt, so that in the churches few can be found who hold all of them as dogmas. Yet this doesn't cause angst like the notion of women priests, or divorce and remarriage, or abortion. I don't think Francis is really that inaccurate when he says that the modern Church has effectively defined itself in terms of these things, and this is not Christianity. He has a wicked agenda for this observation, but is it really that false? I tend to think the analysis is about right. Novus Conservatives really do seem to have a religion in which those are the important things. The Mass certainly isn't that important to them! I might be doing them an injustice, but I think of the Novus Conservative milieu as essentially the "Catholic" pro-life movement. Note, I am not suggesting that those people don't have orthodox faith themselves - they probably largely do - but only that what gets them moving, what upsets them, is not the doubt or denial of other dogmas, but only the ones relating to women. Perhaps this is because these matters are largely natural law, so that if the supernatural spirit is gone, those things are all that remain. I don't know, but it's curious.

This is largely because natural law is and can be known, by any man. This is why for a large part, even someone without any theological training can understand the principles of natural law.

What is amazing to me, is how some people can say that the Novus Ordo is pro-life while at the same time maintaining that aborted babies are saved? I know a personal Doctor friend of mine, who does a private practice who told me that he had several women, who actually aborted their babies AFTER hearing that from the "pro-life" movement. Think about it, why would I put my baby in such difficult circumstances, when I could simply just take him straight to heaven?

I would honestly, work for free at the pro-life Planned Parenthood clinics and do "God's" work of saving souls. If the theological premise is right, then the conclusions follow. The Novus Ordo apologist, do not even teach authentic natural law, so that even the little bit that they have left is really nothing but an illusion.

I really don't care whether they are good willed or bad willed, in the end regardless of their intent. It is pure heresy they preach, and it leads to the detriment of those who are seeking truth, because it gives them advice that is totally alien to the Catholic faith.

As Ratzinger would point out, our modern catch-22 is why should you become a Catholic? If all the other false-religions are means of salvation, nay as he argues "ordinary" ways. Straight from the pit of hell...

What I find peculiar is just how many people are becoming sedebenediciplenist, everyone seems to think that Bergoglio is a false-prophet while poor Ratzinger is locked away. This really seems to be a mini-revival of the Siri thesis to the masses, whereby you can be able to have a true Pope be in submission to an anti-Pope without any theological problems...

I suppose it is possible, and has probably happened in the past, that a pope has been brought out of illicit elections who really is pope, and has gone on to do his duty as perfectly as any pope. I don't think that the nature of the election process is so crucial, though given our situation I can see why it is an attractive answer. We have a serious problem with Bergoglio, and it is one that an irregular election would solve, if it could be proved. What a relief it would be to simply shrug off his strange speeches by saying, “Oh, just more anti-pope talk.” Tempting indeed.

But I think there is a more generally useful answer that can be taken on board by any Catholic who still believes: If the pope is not a Catholic, and is pursuing goals contrary to those of Christ, does it matter if he is canonically an anti-pope? Does it matter if the election process was violated in this or that way?

This is nonsense, but I think underlying it is sedevacantism. Of course, sedevacantism is OK, as long as you loudly protest that sedevacantism is evil and stupid and schismatic. It's OK to think that Bergoglio is not really pope, as long as you make clear to everybody that you definitely do not think that the See of Rome is not occupied by Bergoglio.

This strange psychology is not as it might seem, totally impenetrable. It's actually quite simple. What we observe are two factors coinciding. 1. The Catholic instinct which rejects heretics as dangerous and repulsive. 2. A kind of idée fixe resulting from years of thoughtless chanting against the Great Evil of Sedevacantism. The two mental habits are both firmly rooted in the minds of these people, and precisely because the second factor has been so content-free, so intellectually vacuous, it is able to co-exist with the first factor, which arises directly from the virtue of faith itself. If the anti-sedevacantist efforts of, for example, Michael Davies or Fr. Boulet, had been of any intellectual substance, the two factors would collide and produce a violent intellectual crisis. But they're not doing that. They are co-existing peacefully. It's amazing.

I detect the same causality beneath the notion that Ratzinger is still pope. It's nonsense, but it's a way of being sedevacantist without being, well, sedevacantist.

Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the Pope is a heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church, it is the Pope. He is the centre of the Church and has a great influence on all Catholics by his attitudes, his words and his acts. All men read in the newspapers the Pope's words and on television they see his travels. And so, slowly, slowly, many Catholics are losing the Catholic Faith by the scandal of the Pope's partaking in false religions. This ecumenism is a scandal in the true sense of the word, an encouragement to sin. Catholics are losing faith in the Catholic Church. They think all religions are good because the Pope in this way befriends men of all religions. When the scandal comes from so high in the Church, from the man in the chair of Peter and from almost all the bishops, then poor Catholics who are thrown back on their own resources and who do not know their Faith well enough to keep it despite all, or who do not have priests by their side to help them to keep the Faith, these Catholics are completely at a loss what to do. They are no longer practicing their Faith, or they give up praying, or they are losing the Faith altogether and are joining some sect or other. I ask, what people are keeping the Faith? Where are they? Where are they? And I ask even the Traditionalists!

What I don't understand is why the moral issues were chosen as the things that would be defended to a greater degree.

I think the plan of the enemy was, all along, to change morals last. If they had been changed first, there would have been vast and serious resistance, and the whole revolution might have been murdered in its infancy. Now the resistance is beleaguered, and the Novus Ordo world has grown largely accustomed to moral lassitude.

But in the early days, there had to be some show of defense for morality as a way of covering up the higher heresies until those errors had time to do their weakening work.

Mon Nov 03, 2014 7:07 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Sedevacantism top of mind...

That makes sense, Mike. Perhaps another factor is that they believed in morals, but not in the supernatural dogmas. St. Pius X in Pascendi comments that often the Modernists are men of unimpeachable morals, if I recall correctly. One doesn't achieve that without believing in morals.

_________________In Christ our King.

Mon Nov 03, 2014 11:03 pm

James Schroepfer

Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 4:53 pmPosts: 100

Re: Sedevacantism top of mind...

Quote:

John Lane: Perhaps another factor is that they believed in morals...

But would it be fair to say, like Dogma, Modernists believe in a morality which is in conformity with society, or the spirit working through the interior of men. So like Dogma, the laws of morality are subject to change based on the "interior experience" at the current time. It seems like they hold to a very Puritan idea of life in conformity with the norms of society. As long as man is ok with it so are we rather then asking if it conforms with the laws of God.

Tue Nov 04, 2014 1:33 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Sedevacantism top of mind...

OK, here we go again, sedevacantism top of mind. This time, in a very, very, mainstream Novus source:

There are texts whose relevance at times is highlighted more by the violent reactions to them than by their very contents. When a simple, direct, apparently harmless article makes the unofficial American spokesman for Cardinal Rodríguez Maradiaga, NCReporter's Michael Sean Winters, freak out, then you know it must be good.

First, let us take a look at the spokesman freaking out at NCReporter earlier today:

Quote:

This morning, I see an article at The Catholic Thing by Jesuit Fr. James Schall on what I assume he considers the timely topic of "Heretical Popes." This is irresponsible and inflammatory. I hope every bishop in the U.S. will read it and recognize the danger Schall represents and recognize, too, that the only response to this danger is to seek even harder to embrace Pope Francis and his effort to renew the Church.

How quaintly and adorably and unexpectedly Ultramontane as the spokesman marks Fr. Schall with the scarlet letter!

OK, now let us take a look at the article, which proves that God will certainly save the modern Society of Jesus from destruction one day because, through Abraham's prayers, he has found some just men in that city, and one of those is Fr. James V. Schall. It is not dangerous, nor irresponsible, much less inflammatory, it is harmless and loving and thoughtful, and utterly theoretical, from the extremely tranquil and peaceful "The Catholic Thing".

But the spokesman's explosive reaction must mean it has some gold nuggets in it:

Quote:

On Heretical Popes By James V. Schall S.J. TUESDAY, 11 NOVEMBER 2014

[Concluding excerpts:] ...

Some writers hold that a pope cannot be a heretic. I had a professor of theology who held that, if a pope was about to sign an heretical document, he would be dead the next morning. Others maintain that if a heretic is elected to the papacy, he will automatically convert on accepting the Office of Peter.

The technical issue of an heretical pope goes back to Reformation discussions, led by the Jesuits, Robert Bellarmine and Francisco Suarez, among others. Jacques Maritain, Yves Simon, and John Courtney Murray brought up the issue in discussing the difference between political and ecclesiastical authority. We read in Romans that the authority of an emperor, as that of a pope, comes from God, but in differing ways.

John Locke’s opposition to the divine right of kings was an aspect of this issue. The divine right of kings was not a medieval doctrine, though it did go back to oriental despotism, to the divinization of Alexander the Great and the Roman emperors. Authority came directly to the king, not through the people, as the Aristotelian mind had it. Divine right was designed to protect the king from assassination by elevating him to a divine status.

Bellarmine and Suarez considered a de facto possibility of an heretical pope. They granted that the Church would have to depose him if he did not self-declare his heresy. They differed on the exact procedure that would be required. Basically, electors would de-designate the man chosen pope. But as such, they had no authority over the papal power itself, which is from God.

In recent discussions of an heretical pope, the term sedevacante shows up. It means that, if a pope is heretical, his chair is automatically vacant by divine law. Some hold that anyone can so pronounce this vacancy, which would logically make every man his own pope. Bellarmine and Suarez thought the Church, in the persons of a General Council or the assembled Cardinals would have to declare the pope a heretic and depose him. They differed a bit on the exact procedure.

Several writers imply that suddenly the institution, which seemed so solid over the centuries, appears shaky in its own order. “If the Church succumbs to modernity, will it still be a Church?” they wonder. The main issues, in the case of Francis, revolve around the indissolubility of marriage, the nature of the papacy itself, and the approval of gay life as normal. The first is a question of reason and revelation – Moses allowed divorce, Christ did not; the second of revelation; and the third, homosexuality, of reason.

Issues such as the pope’s understanding of the economy or his reading of Islam as solely a religion of peace can be disputed. They are not so close to doctrinal issues. Though they seem to diverge at times, doctrine and compassion do not exclude each other.

Heretical popes? The essence of Catholicism is that there be none. It is also its essence that, if necessary, the issue be faced squarely and judged fairly.

Sadly, the Jesuit Fr. Schall has little idea what he's talking about, on the divine right of kings (he thinks it's the Catholic doctrine - abandoned by the Modernists - that all authority comes from God, and he thinks it was designed to prevent assassinations... Oh my!), or on the heretic-pope thesis. Cajetan and Bellarmine are the big names in this discussion, and Fr. Schall doesn't mention Cajetan and obviously hasn't read Bellarmine at all, given the gross distortions he makes of Bellarmine's doctrine. "Basically, electors would de-designate the man chosen pope." That's Cajetan! It's the central point of Cajetan's that Bellarmine carefully and thoroughly refutes! Nor is this doctrine in Suarez! UUGGGGHHHHHH!

Would it be worthwhile sending Fr. Schall the extract Jim Larrabee translated from Bellarmine? Probably not, but perhaps somebody with a Quixotic temperament could do so?

One man whom I know holds that all popes since Pius X were heretics. Whole groups maintain that all popes after Vatican II are heretics, even John Paul II. He invited leaders of other religions to Assisi to pray together, but he failed to evangelize them or insist in uniqueness of Catholicism. At Vatican I, several notable figures did not accept the infallibility doctrine. The Reformation itself mostly declared all popes heretical back to Peter. Pope Paul III excommunicated Henry VIII precisely over the question of the indissolubility of marriage. The Eastern Orthodox have rejected the papal position for centuries.

Under Pope Francis, columnists from all over the world broach the “heresy” question, which he is said to foment. Cardinal Burke remarked that Pope Francis should clarify just what he stands for. William Oddie thinks that, in recent comments on marriage, Francis has done this. Others are not so sure. I know a man who thinks that the pope should simply resign because his comments have caused so much anguish and confusion.

George Weigel noted that the modern world has waited half a century for the Catholic Church to accept its mores. It has not done so under Francis. A correspondent in Argentina, however, writes that only three views of this pope exist: 1) he is a modernist, but covers himself by occasionally talking of the devil, 2) he seeks attention and power by attracting everything to himself, and 3) he is a confused thinker but basically orthodox. The man adds that this last view is no longer tenable. Still he sent a document that Archbishop Bergoglio wrote on the gay question in which Francis upheld the old Roman Law tradition of marriage that referred to a mother and the sons begotten of her. But I would be surprised if Pope Francis did not have a huge following in Argentina.

Some writers hold that a pope cannot be a heretic. I had a professor of theology who held that, if a pope was about to sign an heretical document, he would be dead the next morning. Others maintain that if a heretic is elected to the papacy, he will automatically convert on accepting the Office of Peter.

The technical issue of an heretical pope goes back to Reformation discussions, led by the Jesuits, Robert Bellarmine and Francisco Suarez, among others. Jacques Maritain, Yves Simon, and John Courtney Murray brought up the issue in discussing the difference between political and ecclesiastical authority. We read in Romans that the authority of an emperor, as that of a pope, comes from God, but in differing ways.

John Locke’s opposition to the divine right of kings was an aspect of this issue. The divine right of kings was not a medieval doctrine, though it did go back to oriental despotism, to the divinization of Alexander the Great and the Roman emperors. Authority came directly to the king, not through the people, as the Aristotelian mind had it. Divine right was designed to protect the king from assassination by elevating him to a divine status.

Bellarmine and Suarez considered a de facto possibility of an heretical pope. They granted that the Church would have to depose him if he did not self-declare his heresy. They differed on the exact procedure that would be required. Basically, electors would de-designate the man chosen pope. But as such, they had no authority over the papal power itself, which is from God.

In recent discussions of an heretical pope, the term sedevacante shows up. It means that, if a pope is heretical, his chair is automatically vacant by divine law. Some hold that anyone can so pronounce this vacancy, which would logically make every man his own pope. Bellarmine and Suarez thought the Church, in the persons of a General Council or the assembled Cardinals would have to declare the pope a heretic and depose him. They differed a bit on the exact procedure.

Several writers imply that suddenly the institution, which seemed so solid over the centuries, appears shaky in its own order. “If the Church succumbs to modernity, will it still be a Church?” they wonder. The main issues, in the case of Francis, revolve around the indissolubility of marriage, the nature of the papacy itself, and the approval of gay life as normal. The first is a question of reason and revelation – Moses allowed divorce, Christ did not; the second of revelation; and the third, homosexuality, of reason.

Issues such as the pope’s understanding of the economy or his reading of Islam as solely a religion of peace can be disputed. They are not so close to doctrinal issues. Though they seem to diverge at times, doctrine and compassion do not exclude each other.

Heretical popes? The essence of Catholicism is that there be none. It is also its essence that, if necessary, the issue be faced squarely and judged fairly.

James V. Schall, S.J., who served as a professor at Georgetown University for thirty-five years, is one of the most prolific Catholic writers in America. His most recent books are The Mind That Is Catholic, The Modern Age, Political Philosophy and Revelation: A Catholic Reading, and Reasonable Pleasures.

written by James Larrabee, November 13, 2014Father Schall, thank you for these excellent comments, particularly your concluding statement that this issue must be faced and judged. This issue is long overdue. I urge you to join together with likeminded people in the Church, including members of the hierarchy and most of all the orthodox Roman clergy, to demand action from those in a position to act. The situation today is more critical than it ever was during the Great Western Schism or even at the height of the Arian heresy. St. Athanasius, St. Vincent Ferrer and other heroes of orthodoxy must show us the way.

...written by James Larrabee, November 13, 2014Time for the true sons of St. Ignatius to stand up against the false ones! Fr. Schall, now you're talking like a true Jesuit. Thank you.

Jim was a Jesuit (not yet ordained) for nine years.

_________________In Christ our King.

Fri Nov 14, 2014 6:37 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Sedevacantism top of mind...

Cardinal Pell joins the procession, inserting into a homily the comment, "Pope Francis is the 266th Pope and history has seen 37 false or anti-Popes."

The entire sermon is attached. I would characterise it as a general survey of the history of the popes with a view to encouring the faithful not to abandon Francis, but rather to realise that we can have bad popes but we must work in the spirit of unity to maintain the faith despite them. Such a sermon indicates that sedevacantism is top of mind...

Now Voris waffles on that he has just discovered that the crisis in the Church is causing people to try and find a reasonable middle ground upon which to tread and remain safe. Why do these people keep appearing as if the crisis just began and it's up to them to work it all out? His hair only reinforces the feeling that he belongs in the 'seventies!

Again, sedevacantism is now sufficiently prominent to attract condemnation...

Note to Michael Vorus: "Not in full communion" is nonsense - or heretical - Conciliar speak. One is either a Catholic or not. There are no degrees of "communion".

_________________In Christ our King.

Mon Nov 17, 2014 11:00 pm

ClemensMaria

Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:58 amPosts: 50Location: Massachusetts, USA

Re: Sedevacantism top of mind...

And on it goes... This time it's: guess who? Would you believe Robert J. Siscoe?

"Here's the bottom line. Unless the Holy Father is speaking directly on a question of faith and morals and makes it binding on all the faithful, whatever he says, or for that matter any pope says or doesn't say carries with it no guaranty what so ever of infallibility. That is why there exist a reserved set of circumstances, very narrow, for him to speak infallibly in the first place."

It is like Mr. Voris says there is a reserved set of circumstances the pope can speak at all. We are supposed to respect the office of the Papacy but not listen to it? He is only needed when dogmas need to be defined. Otherwise ignore what the popes are saying especially if it appears as if they have a black hole in their theology.

Well this is an astonishing development. Astonishing because the authors of this petition have actually gone to the books and read what is there, and quoted and summarised perfectly. The texts they cite are not any of the common ones deployed by sedevacantists, with the sole exception (who could ignore it?) of Paul IV's Cum ex apostolatus.

Quote:

Catholics petition the College of Cardinals to judge validity of Pope FrancisNov16 by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Editor’s note: Here at the From Rome Blog, I have stated that it is not my interest to cover news articles. Yet, being born and raised in the United States, I have a great appreciation for the right of citizens, subjects and the faithful, to make known to their superiors what they believe is for the common good of the society they belong to. This is a natural right in every human society, from the family to the State, and even in the Church. For that reason, I consider it a duty, as the editor of the From Rome Blog, and as a member of the Diocese of Rome, to make known to my fellow Catholics the existence of this petition, the text of which follows. At the bottom, there is a link to the actual petition, if you believe in good conscience you should sign it. I aslo believe, that I have a grave duty to make known to the princes of the Church of Rome, our Cardinals, who are the chief members of the clergy of my Diocese, the existence of this petition.

Here is the text of the petition:

Petition to the Cardinals of the Roman Church regarding the grave improprieties of Pope Francis

As a Baptized member of the Catholic Church, in accord with my divine right to make known to my sacred pastors, the things which I see as necessary to the unity of the Church, the preservation of the Faith and the salvation of souls, I herewith submit this petition to the College of the Cardinals, as princes of the Roman Church, to whom it belongs both in law to elect the Roman Pontiff, and by immemorial right, to judge the man who holds the Pontificate if he err from the faith, and depose him, as Michael a Corona taught in his Tractatus Postumus (Liege, 1677), Tract I, Chapter XXI, n. II, “Whether the Cardinals have any power about the Pope?”:

“A Pontiff, lapsed into heresy, can be most justly deposed. Thus Duvallius, above in q. 10. The reason is, that it is not credible that Christ wants to retain him as Vicar of His Church, who pertinaciously segregates himself whole from Her, since Christ has especially commanded Her, to hear His Voice as a faithful people, and to comply with Him, just as sheep hear the voice of their shepherd. John 10: 3: The sheep hear His Voice and they follow Him. Verse 4: The sheep follow Him. But far be it, only, that the Church should hear a Pontiff lapsed into heresy, She who rather is bound to stop up Her own ears against his violent speech, lest She be infected by the venom of his doctrine, and his casting-out and new election ought to be urged by the assembly of the Sacred Cardinals. The reason is, for, since the Pontiff is the fundament of the Church, the Rock, the Cornerstone, the Base, the Teacher, and the general Shepherd, his heresy abolishes all his privileges, and cancels (them), because he is a destroyer and scatterer of the Church, and consequently is no longer the Pontiff. And/or if he remains there, after he will have been judicially denounced as a heretic, he is to be immediately dispossessed of the Pontificate, if his heresy is external and manifest through the evidence of fact, and/or the declaration of a Council. But not if it be internal and only mental. The reason is, because he is no longer a member of the Church, nor Her head, nor does he cleave to Her by the internal union, which is through faith, nor by the external, which is through the confession of the Faith, and has been cut off from Her in each manner. A schismatic Pontiff incurs the same punishment, as Turrecremata, bk. 4, of Summa Ecclesia, part 1, ch. R1, says; Cajetan, II, II, q. 37, a. 1. Duvallius teaches above in q. 9, that he can enter into schism. First, if he no longer fulfills the office of the Pontiff, or does not wish to be subject to him, who would be elected in his place, but would join himself to the Conciliabula of the Schismatics. Second, if he should wish to change the ancient rites and customs of the Church, remaining from Apostolic tradition, or, rather, if he would pluck away and separate from the unity of the Church those wanting to retain these ceremonies. Third, if he would separate himself on account of an unjust cause from the communion of the whole Church and of all the Bishops, and at the same time will to communicate with certain adherents of his, as is shown in the divine Cyprian, bk. 4, epistle 2, Novatian did, who was pointed out by Cyprian a little after as a Schismatic, and outside the bosom of the Church. And though (this is to be deplored), he had patiently tolerated tyrants for Christ’s sake, Saint Cyprian wrote back that thereafter there was inflicted upon him a death outside the unity of the Church, not the crown of a Martyr, but the punishment of perfidy.”

Mindful, that by the decree of Pope Paul IV, Cum ex apostolatus officio (Dec. 21, 1566), the College and indeed the entire Church is gravely bound to only choose and recognize as validly chosen a man of the Catholic Faith; and mindful that Jorge Bergoglio has both before and after his election on March 13, 2013, expressed himself and acted in ways long condemned by the Apostolic See, as one of many faithful, I humbly ask you to fulfill your duty to protect the Church and the Apostolic see from corruption, by convening at a place chosen among yourself, to judge the questions:

1) Whether Jorge Maria Bergoglio was validly elected, in fulfillment of the decreed of Paul IV, just mentioned, inasmuch as prior to his election he promoted for years in Argentina the concession of communion to those in irregular marriages during the Curas Villeros, which directly contradicts the teaching of the Council of Trent, Session 13, canon XI:

CANON XI.-lf any one saith, that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; let him be anathema. And for fear lest so great a sacrament may be received unworthily, and so unto death and condemnation, this holy Synod ordains and declares, that sacramental confession, when a confessor may be had, is of necessity to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burdened with mortal sin, howsoever contrite they may think themselves. But if any one shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated.

Since, if he was subject to this censure, then in accord with the decree of Pope Paul IV, above mentioned, he was invalidly raised to the dignity of the Cardinalate, and also invalidly elected Roman Pontiff.

2) If, however, you should judge that he was validly elected, I then ask you to judge whether he has lost the office of Roman Pontiff on account of his pertinacious denial of the Faith and/or his malicious manifest intent to persecute the faithful attached to the ancient ecclesiastical traditions, each of which is in violation of the anathema of the Second Council of Nicea, held in 787 A.D., (4th anathema), “If anyone whomsoever should despise any ecclesiastical tradition, anathema sit“, among which traditions are the celebration of the Ancient Roman Rite and the perennial practice of the Catholic Church, from Apostolic times, of refusing communion to adulterers and public sinners.

For, if he falls under this censure of Nicea, then likewise would his election be invalidated by the decree of Pope Paul IV.

3) Finally, even if the anathemas and canons which Pope Paul IV declares valid in perpetuity, would not be enough reason for any member of the Sacred College to convict the man of heresy or perfidious malice to overthrow ecclesiastical tradition, it remains a theological truth of the divine law and ecclesiology, that no one who seeks to harm the Church in anything essential, such as Her fidelity to Christ’s Magisterium, can be in communion with Her; and as such, even a schismatic, morally speaking, cannot be considered in communion with the Church, and thus should and must be removed from office. Wherefore, I ask you to judge whether he is morally in schism from the Church, regarding Her immemorial faith and practice which can never be changed.

Considering the gravity of what is petitioned, I the undersigned request a diligent and thorough investigation, and ask that you princes of the Sacred College gather to hear the evidence submitted to you from the faithful throughout the world, and if you choose, do so in a special meeting, chosen by yourselves, before the feast of Easter, 2015 A.D..

Note of caution for those whose hopes are lifted by this: This same reaction essentially occurred in the time of Paul VI. It went nowhere. What will now happen is that a debate will occur for some period or other, I think. This is good.

_________________In Christ our King.

Wed Nov 19, 2014 12:26 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Sedevacantism top of mind...

ClemensMaria wrote:

And on it goes... This time it's: guess who? Would you believe Robert J. Siscoe?

I am suprised to see Siscoe use that infamous quote from Viollet. His book - the book specifically cited by Siscoe - was condemned and placed on the Index by St. Pius X! This has been publicly pointed out many times, including in my own book answering Fr. Boulet ( viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1169 ).

_________________In Christ our King.

Wed Nov 19, 2014 12:30 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Sedevacantism top of mind...

Quote:

The reason is, because he is no longer a member of the Church, nor Her head, nor does he cleave to Her by the internal union, which is through faith, nor by the external, which is through the confession of the Faith, and has been cut off from Her in each manner. A schismatic Pontiff incurs the same punishment, as Turrecremata, bk. 4, of Summa Ecclesia, part 1, ch. R1, says; Cajetan, II, II, q. 37, a. 1. Duvallius teaches above in q. 9, that he can enter into schism. First, if he no longer fulfills the office of the Pontiff, or does not wish to be subject to him, who would be elected in his place, but would join himself to the Conciliabula of the Schismatics. Second, if he should wish to change the ancient rites and customs of the Church, remaining from Apostolic tradition, or, rather, if he would pluck away and separate from the unity of the Church those wanting to retain these ceremonies.

This is what Paul VI did with the New Mass.

_________________In Christ our King.

Wed Nov 19, 2014 12:35 am

Mike Larson

Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 5:48 pmPosts: 52

Re: Sedevacantism top of mind...

John Lane wrote:

Note of caution for those whose hopes are lifted by this: This same reaction essentially occurred in the time of Paul VI. It went nowhere. What will now happen is that a debate will occur for some period or other, I think. This is good.

Another caution is that this could be an expanded field of gaming, as you called it in a different post. Francis is--perhaps by design--too far over the top. The conservatives get excited, throw him out, and we go back to a JPII or BXVI-style claimant who will enjoy a far greater solidity and commendation of orthodoxy than was ever possessed before in a post-conciliar claimant. The conservatives are overjoyed because they saved "the Church," and the modernists proceed, unabated, with their agenda.

When someone from the Novus Ordo hierarchy repudiates his errors of the last several decades, I will become measurably more intrigued.

Wed Nov 19, 2014 1:35 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Sedevacantism top of mind...

I agree, Mike. Although I am certain that I know who is behind this petition and he's not consciously gaming anybody.

A good corrective or calibration technique is to read some Anglican Oxford Movement material from the nineteenth century. These were certainly non-Catholics, but with a great deal of love for most of the Church's teaching. They openly called some others heretics. They spoke just like the Novus Ordo conservatives, for whom an entirely new synthetic liturgy composed with the explicit intention of creating something acceptable to heretics, and with the actual, public, involvement of Protestant advisers, is now a non-issue and only certain moral questions - in the abstract - are matters of concern! I say, in the abstract, because it's manifest that the entire laity bar a few exceptional families, is addicted to contraception and yet most of them recieve communion each time they assist at "mass" anyway. This open rejection of the Church's teaching is virtually universal and yet as long as the Catechism of the Catholic Church continues to say that contraception is unlawful, nobody perceives a doctrinal problem. The same problem is manifestly present on countless other fronts - for example, belief in the eternity of hell, Transubstantiation and the Real Presence, the necessity for the temporal punishment due to sin being remitted prior to anybody entering the presence of God, etc.

The Catholic Church is a visible unity of profession of the same faith by all of her members. This means:

1. She teaches with authority (i.e. imposes, as law, her doctrine) the same doctrine to all of the world and throughout time.2. She does not tolerate doubt or denial of her doctrines, acting energetically to correct and if necessary punish those who refuse to obey.3. As a result of these factors, the members of the Church with moral universality actually profess the doctrines she teaches. Hence she is not merely a theoretical unity of faith, but an actual, existing, visible, unity of profession.

This was what was denied by Luther, Calvin, Melancthon, Zwingli, and the rest. It is also denied by the vast bulk of Catholics, or "catholics", today.

But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?

_________________In Christ our King.

Wed Nov 19, 2014 2:29 am

Mike Larson

Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 5:48 pmPosts: 52

Re: Sedevacantism top of mind...

John Lane wrote:

The Catholic Church is a visible unity of profession of the same faith by all of her members. This means:

1. She teaches with authority (i.e. imposes, as law, her doctrine) the same doctrine to all of the world and throughout time.2. She does not tolerate doubt or denial of her doctrines, acting energetically to correct and if necessary punish those who refuse to obey.3. As a result of these factors, the members of the Church with moral universality actually profess the doctrines she teaches. Hence she is not merely a theoretical unity of faith, but an actual, existing, visible, unity of profession.

This is an especially well-articulated distinction. The Novus Ordo has theoretical but not actual unity (neither geographically nor in time). Tradition has both--at least doctrinally. As we have said before, even tradition is dishearteningly disunified when it comes to diagnosing the cause and nature of the crisis, as well as to charting the proper response. I reckon such disarray will continue until the Chair is properly occupied, but by then the crisis will be over ...

(RNS) When Benedict XVI stunned Catholics by announcing that he would become the first pope in six centuries to resign, it immediately raised concerns — which were dismissed just as quickly — that an ex-pope around could undermine the legitimacy of the new pontiff.

Now, nearly two years later, those fears are emerging again, fueled by the growing discontent of conservative Catholics with Benedict’s successor, Pope Francis, and by Benedict’s presence, if not quite as a player, in church debates Francis has sparked.

“Benedict is hanging back for now, but there’s no doubt that he could easily become a figurehead for traditionalists harkening back to the good old days,” Notre Dame New Testament professor Candida Moss and Joel Baden, Old Testament professor at Yale Divinity School, warned in a Daily Beast column earlier this month.

Hubert Wolf, a church historian at the University of Münster, echoed those thoughts in comments reported by a leading German newspaper last week, when he said there were worries that “around Francis and Benedict XVI, two competing power centers could come into being in the (Roman) Curia, with pope and anti-pope at the top of each.”

What’s fueling these fears? They seem outlandish, almost medieval. But there are at least four factors at work:

1. “There is another pope still living!”

New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, a Catholic who has become something of a spokesman for conservatives, made that point in a widely circulated column warning that Francis could provoke a schism on the right.

His statement seems both obvious and perilous: If there’s “another pope,” that means there is a potential rival to the throne.

But the “two living popes” meme isn’t actually true, even though it keeps getting repeated.

“There is only one pope and his name is Francis, whether people like him and the direction he is steering Roman Catholicism or not,” wrote Christopher Bellitto, a church historian at Kean University, in a column for Reuters.

“There is not more than one president or prime minister because predecessors are still alive,” Bellitto wrote. “A person holds the office of president, prime minister, or pope. When that person no longer holds that office, then that person is no longer president, prime minister, or pope.”

2. Conspiracy theories won’t die

Good luck telling that to some Catholics and conspiracy-lovers, who have propounded a number of theories they say undermine Francis’ claims to the papacy.

Among them: Benedict used incorrect Latin in his formal resignation letter, so it is invalid; alternately, they say, the cardinals in the March 2013 conclave that elected Francis violated certain procedures, so his election is null and void.

The speculation was so insistent that on the first anniversary of his resignation last February, an exasperated Benedict publicly called notions that he was still pope “simply absurd.”

3. If he walks like a pope …

Despite his protests, Benedict hasn’t exactly helped the situation by keeping his papal name, continuing to wear the distinctive white papal cassock and taking the title — which he created for himself — of “pope emeritus.” Some church experts say he could have instead gone back to a black cassock and his baptismal name, Joseph Ratzinger, and used the title “bishop emeritus of Rome” or simply Cardinal Ratzinger.

“Juridically there is only one pope. A ‘pope emeritus’ cannot exist,” Manuel Jesus Arroba, a professor of canon law at the Pontifical Lateran University, warned in the days after Benedict announced the innovation.

The debates about the legitimacy of the title and papal perks have shown no sign of abating, and that feeds the conspiracy frenzy, which in turn sparks more debates about the wisdom of Benedict’s post-retirement choices.

4. And talks like a pope …

When Benedict retired, he said he would remain “hidden to the world,” living in seclusion in a monastery inside the Vatican walls. But Francis has encouraged Benedict to come out once in a while, and the former pope has not only taken part in some public events but also made his views known in letters and other communications.

No surprise, not all of his views seem to be in sync with those of Francis, which raises alarms among some, and hopes among others.

The latest example was when an edited volume of Benedict’s theological writings was published and it turned out he had deleted a key part of a 1972 essay in which he advocated a way for divorced and remarried Catholics to take Communion — a proposal that Francis has put on the table, to the intense displeasure of many conservatives.

Benedict’s redaction was seen as thwarting any effort to enlist him on the side of the reformers, and it placed him squarely in the center of the latest controversies.

In the end, it seems far-fetched to think Benedict would become an actual anti-pope or foment a real schism.

For one thing, at 87, he is too frail to take any active role in church governance. Moreover, nothing in his past record or his post-retirement statements gives any hint that he would even contemplate such a divisive step.

The problem is, it’s really not about Benedict; it’s about his followers. Their passion is likely to outlast the ex-pope himself.

Fri Nov 28, 2014 2:11 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Sedevacantism top of mind...

This will illustrate the situation a little more. I am told that in Rome, those attached to the traditional liturgy claim that their practice at the "una cum" is to say, "for our pope Benedict and our bishop Francis..."

Whether they really do this is to some extent moot. Even as a joke it paints a revealing picture.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sun Dec 14, 2014 10:38 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Sedevacantism top of mind...

And now the four cardinals of the Dubia have found it necessary to begin their latest missive with a declaration that they are not sedevacantists... Who thought that they were???

Sedevacantism, top of mind, due to Jorge Bergoglio.

"We wish to begin by renewing our absolute dedication and our unconditional love for the Chair of Peter and for Your august person, in whom we recognize the Successor of Peter and the Vicar of Jesus: the “sweet Christ on earth,” as Saint Catherine of Siena was fond of saying. We do not share in the slightest the position of those who consider the See of Peter vacant, nor of those who want to attribute to others the indivisible responsibility of the Petrine munus."

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum